a Nation of laziness!!

[Bern80]

I wonder if it's even occurred to our politicians to look past the insurance industry in seeking solutions for healthcare reform? They seem stuck in their little box and can't seem to think outside it. I've seen nothing in the proposed legislation that actually targets reducing costs or even in looking at WHY costs have risen so dramatically in the recent past.
For example, I recently went for a yearly check up. I needed a culture run and a blood test. I paid the doctor's office for the check up. I received a separate bill from a lab for the culture and was sent to a different clinic to have blood drawn and was billed by them as well. In previous years, all of the services I required were considered part of the check up and billed by the doctor's office at half the cost. Total cost for my routine checkup was $450.00 ( and I never saw a doctor..just a nurse practictioner ) I didn't see anything in the health care legislation that would address issues like this.
If they want to truly lower the cost of medical care, they should look at increasing the number of doctors by perhaps subsidizing medical school tuition. If you want to lower cost on anything..increase supply.

Whatever. What you said fixes none of the major problems we have with healthcare. Why don't you solve all the major problems instead of coming up with new ones? Are you trying to distract us or just confuse the conversation? You know what is wrong with healthcare? Parking!

And Navy is swallows every reason why we can't fix healthcare because the fact is, he wants the status quo too.

Lets face it, if we read more of your writings, I bet you are in favor of the status quo. You're just coming up with new arguments everyday to obstruct any progress. Relax, us liberals have this issue covered.

Don't believe the hype. Its going to get better.

PS. Do you know how Canada did it? One Province at a time. So it may have to be passed state by state instead of nationally. We shall see.

You're just be obtuse yet again, bobo. If you opened your fucking eyes for second and sobered up of the left kool-aid you'd see there isn't anyone here saying they want things to stay the way they are.

I will be perfectly clear about this so you can't conveniently forget it and bring it up as an excuse later; It isn't that the right doesn't want the system improved, it's that the current plans for 'improvement' SUCK. They don't address rising costs, they just hope they'll go down as a side effect of preventative care. Except it's unlikely that will happen because no plan addressess the effect of the increased demand on the system. I fail to see with more demand how we are going to have more time to take preventative health measures. Not to mention that a very good argument can be made that such a bill would be in violation of the constitution.

If you would open your eyes you woudl find on this very board that alternatives have been propossed.

 

[auditor0007]

I wonder if it's even occurred to our politicians to look past the insurance industry in seeking solutions for healthcare reform? They seem stuck in their little box and can't seem to think outside it. I've seen nothing in the proposed legislation that actually targets reducing costs or even in looking at WHY costs have risen so dramatically in the recent past.
For example, I recently went for a yearly check up. I needed a culture run and a blood test. I paid the doctor's office for the check up. I received a separate bill from a lab for the culture and was sent to a different clinic to have blood drawn and was billed by them as well. In previous years, all of the services I required were considered part of the check up and billed by the doctor's office at half the cost. Total cost for my routine checkup was $450.00 ( and I never saw a doctor..just a nurse practictioner ) I didn't see anything in the health care legislation that would address issues like this.
If they want to truly lower the cost of medical care, they should look at increasing the number of doctors by perhaps subsidizing medical school tuition. If you want to lower cost on anything..increase supply.

Whatever. What you said fixes none of the major problems we have with healthcare. Why don't you solve all the major problems instead of coming up with new ones? Are you trying to distract us or just confuse the conversation? You know what is wrong with healthcare? Parking!

And Navy is swallows every reason why we can't fix healthcare because the fact is, he wants the status quo too.

Lets face it, if we read more of your writings, I bet you are in favor of the status quo. You're just coming up with new arguments everyday to obstruct any progress. Relax, us liberals have this issue covered.

Don't believe the hype. Its going to get better.

PS. Do you know how Canada did it? One Province at a time. So it may have to be passed state by state instead of nationally. We shall see.

sealy healthcare is not a monolithic issue no matter how much you want it to be, there are many many factors that cause healthcare costs to rise. The bottom line is that if you don't fix them, and add to it you won't effect the cost of healthcare. I personally have no problem at ALL with individual states offering healthcare to its residents because that is the WILL of the people that live there and is a direct reflection of how this nation is actually supposed to work! In fact, let me give you an example, let's say half the states had healthcare coverage and half did not, would that not be an incentive for people to say come to Mi. instead of living where they do in order to get it? I believe that costs can be contained and can be fixed, it is the other side of the argument that believes that we must rush to a solution that will bankrupt this nation and subvert the contitution..

Basically, there are two ways that cost can be contained, and they both involve one thing, getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance to their employees. To do that, you need either a government run single payer system, or you make everyone responsible for their own coverage but make it mandatory. But since both of those ideas are so un-American, nothing will change and eventually the current system will bankrupt this country and we will fall well behind the rest of the world economically.

 

[Navy1960]

Whatever. What you said fixes none of the major problems we have with healthcare. Why don't you solve all the major problems instead of coming up with new ones? Are you trying to distract us or just confuse the conversation? You know what is wrong with healthcare? Parking!

And Navy is swallows every reason why we can't fix healthcare because the fact is, he wants the status quo too.

Lets face it, if we read more of your writings, I bet you are in favor of the status quo. You're just coming up with new arguments everyday to obstruct any progress. Relax, us liberals have this issue covered.

Don't believe the hype. Its going to get better.

PS. Do you know how Canada did it? One Province at a time. So it may have to be passed state by state instead of nationally. We shall see.

sealy healthcare is not a monolithic issue no matter how much you want it to be, there are many many factors that cause healthcare costs to rise. The bottom line is that if you don't fix them, and add to it you won't effect the cost of healthcare. I personally have no problem at ALL with individual states offering healthcare to its residents because that is the WILL of the people that live there and is a direct reflection of how this nation is actually supposed to work! In fact, let me give you an example, let's say half the states had healthcare coverage and half did not, would that not be an incentive for people to say come to Mi. instead of living where they do in order to get it? I believe that costs can be contained and can be fixed, it is the other side of the argument that believes that we must rush to a solution that will bankrupt this nation and subvert the contitution..

Basically, there are two ways that cost can be contained, and they both involve one thing, getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance to their employees. To do that, you need either a government run single payer system, or you make everyone responsible for their own coverage but make it mandatory. But since both of those ideas are so un-American, nothing will change and eventually the current system will bankrupt this country and we will fall well behind the rest of the world economically.

On a state level there is nothing preveting a state from passing such a bill, however you have many many enforcement issues with the mandatory side of this. The other factor involved is, that healthcare costs can be contained simply by providing coverage for everyone. There is nothing that would preclude a provider from billing a Govt. for services at current rates for services other than a Govt. setting prices. Then you have all sorts of constitutaional issues involved there. So the bottom line is this, if this nation addressed each issue with the idea that the goal was to reduce costs related to the entire industry and not this idea that everyone covered will reduce costs then perhaps costs can be brought down. There are any number of things that can be done, my feeling is that the best way to approach this is for each state to address this issue within it's own state while congress regulates the insurance industry as they are empowered to do. For example there is nothing preventing a state from placing on it's ballot a single payer system and if an individual state did so the Federal Govt. could provide the regulation needed to support this. Basically, it's my contention that this matter should be left to the voters to decided and done so locally.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Aww how cute you coming to muskrats rescue. Single-payer healthcare is a dismal failure. Canadians spend a lower percentage of their income on healthcare than we Americans, and are guaranteed access to healthcare. What they are not guaranteed is that they receive treatment in a timely manner. Us Americans should ask ourselves whether we really want to wait nine weeks for heart surgery or 12 weeks for a hip replacement.

A 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision, applying only in Quebec, determined that single-payer health care violates the constitutional right to life and security of the person. Similar challenges are underway in other provinces. Single-payer healthcare is a solution that is worse than the problem.

Keep in mind the current liberal movement toward “single-payer” healthcare, where “single payer” means the government, which is what Canada has. Want to understand why you probably don’t want a Canadian “free” health-care system? Apart from the confiscatory taxes, there’s the specter that when you’re diagnosed with a potential tumor in your brain, you may be told you have to wait four months for an MRI and another four months for a neurosurgeon’s consult.

That’s what happened to an Ontario man who decided instead to cross the border into the US and pay for his lifesaving treatment out of his own pocket and get it done in four weeks.

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

Every other western country has single payer healthcare, which of these countries has 300 million people? Australia? Sweden? Canada? The U.K.? Another thing, just because other countries have a system in place doesn't mean it's better or that it would work in every country. You sound like my five year old grandkid.. "but the other kids have one...."

Not only should you grow the fuck up, you should also rethink your position on single payer healthcare.

LoneStar....Christina has got single payer health care coming out of his ass....he has been shown time and time again that there are some problems with this....but the dildo will not even at least aknowledge that.....he doesnt care....lets RUSH into this and then see if we can fix an even worse problem....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Aww how cute you coming to muskrats rescue. Single-payer healthcare is a dismal failure. Canadians spend a lower percentage of their income on healthcare than we Americans, and are guaranteed access to healthcare. What they are not guaranteed is that they receive treatment in a timely manner. Us Americans should ask ourselves whether we really want to wait nine weeks for heart surgery or 12 weeks for a hip replacement.

A 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision, applying only in Quebec, determined that single-payer health care violates the constitutional right to life and security of the person. Similar challenges are underway in other provinces. Single-payer healthcare is a solution that is worse than the problem.

Keep in mind the current liberal movement toward “single-payer” healthcare, where “single payer” means the government, which is what Canada has. Want to understand why you probably don’t want a Canadian “free” health-care system? Apart from the confiscatory taxes, there’s the specter that when you’re diagnosed with a potential tumor in your brain, you may be told you have to wait four months for an MRI and another four months for a neurosurgeon’s consult.

That’s what happened to an Ontario man who decided instead to cross the border into the US and pay for his lifesaving treatment out of his own pocket and get it done in four weeks.

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

Every other western country has single payer healthcare, which of these countries has 300 million people? Australia? Sweden? Canada? The U.K.? Another thing, just because other countries have a system in place doesn't mean it's better or that it would work in every country. You sound like my five year old grandkid.. "but the other kids have one...."

Not only should you grow the fuck up, you should also rethink your position on single payer healthcare.

LoneStar....Christina has got single payer health care coming out of his ass....he has been shown time and time again that there are some problems with this....but the dildo will not even at least aknowledge that.....he doesnt care....lets RUSH into this and then see if we can fix an even worse problem....

Oh ok, in other words he's a typical left wing liberal with his head up his ass. Thanks for heads up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Who are Who are the uninsured?


* Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
* The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
* The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2 "

Who are the "uninsured"?


How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers? | KeithHennessey.com

* There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.

* Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

* Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.

* Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.

* Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.

* Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.

* The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:
o U.S. citizens;
o with income below 300% of poverty;
o not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
o and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

So your figure of 46 million includes:

People who are eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and SCHIP or other heavily subsidized benefits but have chosen not to enroll

People who earn 300% of poverty level wages and choose not to buy insurance even though their employer offers it or they could afford their own

Illegal immigrants

leaving about 10 million people that do not fit into any of the above categories or approximately 3% of the population.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why Obamacare Can't Work: The Calculation Argument - Gabriel E. Vidal - Mises Institute

In his speech to the AMA in Chicago June 15, 2009, Obama shared his diagnosis, solutions, and justification for healthcare reform: health costs are spiraling out of control and are a threat to the economy, families, businesses, and the federal government. The current system is unsustainable. Costs are increasing faster than they should because we spend money on things that don't make us healthier. We equate expensive care with better care. We overuse and reimburse for treatments that are not needed and we pay for quantity instead of quality.

We can categorize Obama's major solutions to the healthcare crisis as follows:

1.

Payment reform. Change how providers are paid by bundling payments so they team up to treat episode of care or illness. Pay for quality outcomes.
2.

Knowledge reform. Invest in examining and disseminating knowledge of what treatments are more cost effective and clinically effective to cut costs.
3.

Information-technology reform. Upgrade medical records from paper to electronic. This will avoid duplication of tests, track information from doctor to doctor, lower administrative costs, improve doctors' productivity, and reduce medical errors.
4.

Insurance reform. Make the purchase of health insurance mandatory for everyone. Eliminate preexisting-condition waivers and insurance companies' ability to "cherry-pick" whom to cover. Introduce an affordable public option for individuals in order to inject competition into the marketplace to keep private insurance companies honest.

Obama assures us that this is not government-run healthcare, that this is not a single-payer system, that the only consequence to these reforms is that healthcare will cost less and that anybody who denies this is misleading or does not understand the facts. Without his reform, he insists, costs will grow unsustainably, which will threaten reimbursements and the stability of the healthcare system.

Unfortunately, since Obama uses faulty logic to diagnose the problem, his solutions will only make matters worse faster. The correct framework within which to diagnose the problem is to admit that costs are out of control because they do not reflect prices created by the voluntary exchange between patients and providers, between customers and producers, like every well-functioning industry.

Instead, health costs reflect the distortions that government regulators have introduced through reimbursement mechanisms created by command-and-control bureaucracies at federal and state levels.

Simply put, Medicare, Medicaid, workers compensation, HMOs and even private health-insurance firms that follow Medicare rates, rely on cost reports submitted by providers. This cost data is then pushed through mathematical models and additional data generated by government, such as inflation and regional-labor-cost modifiers, to unilaterally (or in agreement with lobbyists and industry groups) determine what the prices for services should be.

But it is theoretically and practically impossible for a bureaucrat — no matter how accurate the cost data, how well intentioned and how sophisticated his computer program — to come up with the correct and just price. The just price of a health service can only be determined by the voluntary exchange of a patient with his hospital, physician, and pharmacist. The relationship between the patient and his private provider has been corrupted by the intrusion of government and its intermediaries (HMOs, for example) to such an extent that we can no longer speak of a relationship that can produce meaningful pricing information.

Given the level of technological advance and capital investment in healthcare of the past 40 years, one would expect quality to increase and prices to come down relative to other goods and services. This is true of other capital-intensive industries like consumer electronics and air travel. But in healthcare we have the opposite phenomenon: higher prices and, at best, equal or slightly improved quality in some locations or, at worst, lower quality in other locations, particularly government owned institutions. And too few consider that perhaps government participation is to blame.

Obama suggests that Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for the cost spiral because they pay for quantity rather than quality, because they do not differentiate between services that make people healthier and those that do not, because they pay for services that are not needed, etc. But he is stating the obvious. Government bureaucrats, physicians, patients, and hospitals have known that for as long as these federal programs have existed. In fact, these reimbursement mechanisms have been modified over the years to attempt to resolve these very deficiencies in the same way that Soviet and Cuban planners attempted to cure the weaknesses of their resource-allocation formulas.

Contrary to Obama's suggestion that knowledge of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness can be obtained and disseminated, there is no rational way to evaluate cost effectiveness outside of the free market. Central health planners cannot compare and recommend the best option between two different combinations of drugs, hospitals, and physicians to treat a particular ailment. It is not just a matter of figuring out which combination offers better outcomes and lower costs. In fact, the bureaucrat actually needs prices to make that comparison! This is also why Obama's ideas on payment reform to change how Medicare pays providers, and knowledge reform to investigate which treatments are most cost effective will never work and will increase costs and reduce quality. We have explored this argument in detail here.

Obama also proposes to reduce the cost of health care by upgrading medical records from paper to electronic. While the benefits of health information technology (HIT) are undeniable, the industry is nowhere near the level of development required to have a material impact in productivity and quality of care. It is truly in its infancy. We have different manufacturers with different systems, and different silos of solutions to particular problems even within the same manufacturer — silos that at best communicate clumsily with each other and at worst make the physician's access to meaningful timely clinical information a nightmare.

Billions of dollars have already been invested in HIT. Some systems have worked, while others have not. Billions more will need to be allocated until the best systems are adopted. But the idea that somehow a government agency with no shareholders at risk will help us better coordinate the allocation of capital and the experimentation necessary to develop these solutions is laughable, especially when one of its agents, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in all likelihood has the record for the most expensive failed HIT experiment to date, the $467 million computer system at its Bay Pines hospital in Florida.

The true drive behind government's interest in electronic medical records is the desire to acquire as much clinical and cost information as possible to further control care delivery and health resources. But this is a futile effort as we have seen above. In addition, the effort runs counter to the logical problem that computer systems at millions of local provider-patient levels are capable of generating more data than can be processed expeditiously and meaningfully by a central control agency and its computer system. Any information produced by this central planner will be erroneous and old by the time it is used to guide central bureaucratic decision making.

Obama's plan also includes a reform of our private health-insurance market. He would like, first, to make health insurance mandatory for all Americans, second, to offer an affordable public option, and third, to eliminate the ability of insurance companies to "cherry-pick" which services to cover and which to deny. These changes, he believes, will reduce cost shifting — the practice that providers use to subsidize charity, bad debt, and unprofitable government programs by charging more to insurance companies and private payers and patients — and will spread the risks of the insurance company to healthy individuals, thereby reducing the costs to everyone.

These insurance reforms ideas are flawed. They are based on the assumption that health insurance companies can charge premiums to a pool of policyholders, predict and pay for a large loss triggered by an event outside the control of the policyholder, and make a profit. But sickness combines risks that are uncontrollable with risks that are indeed controllable by the policyholder (eating, exercise, preventative habits, and adherence to treatment plans, for example) and the provider (selection of diagnostic tests, specialists and hospitals, for example). As a result, insurance companies are left with tools of rationing via higher premiums, deductibles, copayments and utilization controls placed on providers, which have a tendency to create nonrandom groups of policyholders and providers. Health insurance companies are more instruments of income redistribution than risk managers, and they are left with only one option: to charge healthy individuals enough to subsidize sick individuals. Eventually, when the impact of the redistribution on individuals is high enough, many either opt out or are priced out of the market, creating the 50 million uninsured individuals.[1]

Obama explicitly states that he wants to force the redistribution of income from healthy to unhealthy individuals but with the illogical belief that somehow this scheme will reduce the costs to everyone. But we have seen that even if the size of the risk pool is extended to the whole population of the United States by mandating every American to have health insurance and hence fixing the size and selection of the risk pool to the whole population, this does not address the fundamental flaw of mixing controllable with uncontrollable risks. Any sensible insurance reform should separate these risks and only cover uncontrollable risks, allow individual underwriting (the practice of insurance companies assessing each individual's pricing and eligibility) move away from community rating (the practice of offering the same price to large groups of individuals regardless of each individual's age, sex, health status, and risk level) so that healthy people pay lower premiums and sick people pay higher premiums, exactly the current model for life insurance. In other words, we should allow and encourage "cherry-picking," not ban it.

The logical tendency of Obama's insurance reforms, despite his explicit denial, will be an inexorable movement towards a single-payer system as his reforms will not control costs or utilization, and the only alternative left will be to enhance the control of the plan via explicit rationing, by a bureaucrat, of the care delivered. The central authority must then decide which health services are provided and which denied, who should receive them and who should not, when they should be given, all in addition to its current function of attempting to determine prices. Such a centralized system must logically retrograde into chaos because pricing signals to patients, doctors, and hospitals will be so distorted that they cannot guide resource allocation.

Obama concludes his speech by stating,

we're a nation that cares for its citizens. We look out for one another. That's what makes us the United States of America. We need to get this done.

Besides the obvious demagoguery to justify accelerating further control of healthcare by the federal government, we should ask ourselves how we have devolved from a collection of independent states founded by a war of secession from a central government power into one nation with a powerful central state. The justification for independence from the rule of King George III that these states gave was based on the doctrine of natural human rights,

that all men are created equally free & independent, & have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life & Liberty, with the Means of acquiring & possessing property, & pursuing & obtaining Happiness & Safety.



These words are from the original draft written by George Mason for the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Nowhere in this document or in successive drafts by Mason and Thomas Jefferson do we read words that could lead the reader to conclude that the federal government ought to care for its citizens or that we ought to look out for one another or that a central government ought to violate our individual natural rights to freedom, independence, and property to achieve the absurdity of mandatory equal access, equal price, equal quantity, and equal quality of health care for all.

Gabriel E. Vidal is the chief operating officer of a hospital system in the United States. He has a BA in politics, philosophy, and economics and an MBA in finance. Send him mail. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Aww how cute you coming to muskrats rescue. Single-payer healthcare is a dismal failure. Canadians spend a lower percentage of their income on healthcare than we Americans, and are guaranteed access to healthcare. What they are not guaranteed is that they receive treatment in a timely manner. Us Americans should ask ourselves whether we really want to wait nine weeks for heart surgery or 12 weeks for a hip replacement.

A 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision, applying only in Quebec, determined that single-payer health care violates the constitutional right to life and security of the person. Similar challenges are underway in other provinces. Single-payer healthcare is a solution that is worse than the problem.

Keep in mind the current liberal movement toward “single-payer” healthcare, where “single payer” means the government, which is what Canada has. Want to understand why you probably don’t want a Canadian “free” health-care system? Apart from the confiscatory taxes, there’s the specter that when you’re diagnosed with a potential tumor in your brain, you may be told you have to wait four months for an MRI and another four months for a neurosurgeon’s consult.

That’s what happened to an Ontario man who decided instead to cross the border into the US and pay for his lifesaving treatment out of his own pocket and get it done in four weeks.

Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

Every other western country has single payer healthcare, which of these countries has 300 million people? Australia? Sweden? Canada? The U.K.? Another thing, just because other countries have a system in place doesn't mean it's b\`tter or that it would work in every country. You sound like my five year old grandkid.. "but the other kids have one...."

Not only should you grow the fuck up, you should also rethink your position on single payer healthcare.

LoneStar....Christina has got single payer health care coming out of his ass....he has been shown time and time again that there are some problems with this....but the dildo will not even at least aknowledge that.....he doesnt care....lets RUSH into this and then see if we can fix an even worse problem....

Oh ok, in other words he's a typical left wing liberal with his head up his ass. Thanks for heads up.

he is worse....beyond typical....many "liberals" can at least aknowledge the problems associated with something and agree that you gotta move carefully,not just rush into something.....not Chrissy....

 

[Chris]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

 

[KittenKoder]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

Why do you ignore the other facts:

1. None of those with single payer systems have the AMA to bribe.

2. None of those with single payer systems have the FDA to bribe and pay.

3. None of them work as well you are seem to think.

4. None of them are paying their doctors to peddle drugs onto their populace.

Of course they are cheaper ... fewer doctors, fewer people to bribe, fewer peddlers.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

Did you read any of the links I provided? Of course not. Tell you what when you grow up, I'll explain it to you. Until then set still and let us grown-ups debate the important issues facing our nation.

 

[Chris]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

Why do you ignore the other facts:

1. None of those with single payer systems have the AMA to bribe.

2. None of those with single payer systems have the FDA to bribe and pay.

3. None of them work as well you are seem to think.

4. None of them are paying their doctors to peddle drugs onto their populace.

Of course they are cheaper ... fewer doctors, fewer people to bribe, fewer peddlers.

No, they are cheaper because they don't have to pay administrative costs and profits for 150seperate insurance companies, and liability lawyers. They also can negotiate drug prices down because they represent all patients as a single unit. Likewise the doctors can concentrate on treating their patients instead of having the hire a huge staff to deal with 150different insurance companies all with different procedures and forms. Our system is bloated, expensive, and unfair. I have talked to many people from other countries who love their system. Why? Because it is better. Not perfect, just better.

 

[Chris]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

Did you read any of the links I provided? Of course not. Tell you what when you grow up, I'll explain it to you. Until then set still and let us grown-ups debate the important issues facing our nation.

All you have is name calling.

How sad.

 

[KittenKoder]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

Why do you ignore the other facts:

1. None of those with single payer systems have the AMA to bribe.

2. None of those with single payer systems have the FDA to bribe and pay.

3. None of them work as well you are seem to think.

4. None of them are paying their doctors to peddle drugs onto their populace.

Of course they are cheaper ... fewer doctors, fewer people to bribe, fewer peddlers.

No, they are cheaper because they don't have to pay administrative costs and profits for 150seperate insurance companies, and liability lawyers. They also can negotiate drug prices down because they represent all patients as a single unit. Likewise the doctors can concentrate on treating their patients instead of having the hire a huge staff to deal with 150different insurance companies all with different procedures and forms. Our system is bloated, expensive, and unfair. I have talked to many people from other countries who love their system. Why? Because it is better. Not perfect, just better.

LOL ... you have no understanding of economics ... where did you get that, from some partisan blog?

Competition keeps the prices down, it's the regulation groups that drive them up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do you ignore the other facts:

1. None of those with single payer systems have the AMA to bribe.

2. None of those with single payer systems have the FDA to bribe and pay.

3. None of them work as well you are seem to think.

4. None of them are paying their doctors to peddle drugs onto their populace.

Of course they are cheaper ... fewer doctors, fewer people to bribe, fewer peddlers.

No, they are cheaper because they don't have to pay administrative costs and profits for 150seperate insurance companies, and liability lawyers. They also can negotiate drug prices down because they represent all patients as a single unit. Likewise the doctors can concentrate on treating their patients instead of having the hire a huge staff to deal with 150different insurance companies all with different procedures and forms. Our system is bloated, expensive, and unfair. I have talked to many people from other countries who love their system. Why? Because it is better. Not perfect, just better.

LOL ... you have no understanding of economics ... where did you get that, from some partisan blog?

Competition keeps the prices down, it's the regulation groups that drive them up.

exactly KK

when the free market is subverted by government price fixing, there is no competition and prices are arbitrary and therefore inflated.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, they are cheaper because they don't have to pay administrative costs and profits for 150seperate insurance companies, and liability lawyers. They also can negotiate drug prices down because they represent all patients as a single unit. Likewise the doctors can concentrate on treating their patients instead of having the hire a huge staff to deal with 150different insurance companies all with different procedures and forms. Our system is bloated, expensive, and unfair. I have talked to many people from other countries who love their system. Why? Because it is better. Not perfect, just better.

LOL ... you have no understanding of economics ... where did you get that, from some partisan blog?

Competition keeps the prices down, it's the regulation groups that drive them up.

exactly KK

when the free market is subverted by government price fixing, there is no competition and prices are arbitrary and therefore inflated.

nice try but Christina WILL NOT BUY WHAT YOUR SELLING....he must be in line to make some good bucks if this gets passed....otherwise WHY is he and the other PUSHERS of this bill so ADAMENT that it gets passed RIGHT NOW?....this is a huge undertaking for a country this big and diverse....and for people like Chris to not care if they fuck this thing up....he must be in line to fleece this like a pick pocket in Vegas....

 

[Navy1960]

In many Western European countries, health care is the fastest growing segment of government spending. Over the past forty years there has been a significant increase in health-care spending. According to the latest OECD figures (2003), Western European countries spend between 7.3 and 11.5% of their gross domestic product on health care. Ten years ago it was between 6.9 and 9.9%. In 1960 it was only around 4%.

Much of the rise in Europe’s health-care costs is caused by factors beyond government control, such as demographic evolution. Another important cause of rising expenditure, however, is the advancement of better and newer – but more expensive – medical technology.

There are only two ways to keep the present government-run European health-care systems going. One can either drastically increase the financial burden on those at the paying end of the system – the young and healthy of today – or one can drastically limit the quality and the availability of health care for those at the receiving end – the sick and the elderly.

Other ways in which many governments in Europe have tried to control health-care spending has been by drawing up "negative lists" of drugs which doctors are not allowed to prescribe. Drugs are put on the "negative" list not because they are harmful, but because they are high-quality goods that are deemed too expensive.

For almost a decade now, governments have been stifling medical innovation in Europe. Last month the American drug company Pfizer decided not to build a new plant in Belgium because the Belgian government has been constantly raising taxation on pharmaceuticals. The government wants to reduce pharmaceutical expenditure by limiting drugs. They reckon that by limiting supply, demand will go down. In the same way, European governments discourage young people from becoming doctors, dentists or nurses. Many countries allow only a limited number of people to study for a medical profession, despite the fact that, due to the demographic development and the growing number of elderly, more doctors and nurses will be needed in the future.
Health Care Cuts in Europe

This is just one take on the European model of healthcare, while many Americans that support Govt. mandated healthcare look to Europe as some socialistic nirvana that will cure every ill and right every wrong. What is clear that while the goal of coverage is met the price is very high. It comes in the form of lost jobs, long waits, poor quality, a system that favors the wealthy over the poor, a massive tax burden upon their citizens, and lack of innovation. So if this is the price those that support Govt. mandated healthcare wish to pay at the expense of this nation then that is what you will pay. I for one am not willing to pay such a steep price, not for myself, not for my daughter, not for my fellow citizens, or the nation I care for.

 

[Gunny]

III. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
The bill creates shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government to ensure that all Americans have affordable coverage of essential health benefits.

Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level.

House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act: July 14 2009 | OldenGoldenDecoy's Blog

Let me assure EVERYONE here, I intend to use EVERY single resource I have available if this bill is passed to mount a constitutional challenge on it. The day it is passed I well go into Federal Court and seek an injunction until such time that the constitutional merits of this bill can be addressed. As congress see's fit not not only igonre the fact that NO ONE has a contitutional right to healthcare other than Federal prisioners it see's fit to pass mandates that it's citizens carry healthcare bypassing it. All of you who wish your healthcare to provided for you by the Federal Govt. don't expect it to be the nirvana you think it will be and SHAME on all of your for supporting this legislation that will relegate this nation to a 3rd world status all for your personal comfort. The facts are that this issue is an issue that needs to be addressed as a cost issue and not a mandate issue.This bill is a direct result of a culture of laziness and people expecting a government to solve each and every problem for them. It is a result of an education system that teaches shared responsibility over personal responsibility. This bill rises out of an expectation of those that grown up expecting others to provide for them and not having the ability to go out and provide for themselves. The facts are a vast majority of Americans already have healthcare coverage and half of the so called 48 million that are uninsured are uninsured because they choose to be. So this crisis is a crisis of those that have no desire to provide for themselves and their families and wish to take from their neighbors to make up for their own shortcommings as citizens. Yes, it's important that we as a nation reform costs in the healthcare system, but we do so as a Free nation keeping in mind that our nation was built on the premise that people are free to choose their own destiny. So all of you who support turning this nation into a 3rd world 3rd rate power whos largest employer is the Govt. and consumes everything, and produces nothing then by all means support this nation killing bill. I've heard all the stupid arguments on this bill based on the the so called 48 million and the evil insurance companies, and statistics from the WHO , if anyone had bothered to read the actual numbers would have seen that those numbers on healthcare in our natiuon also inluded murders and accidents in which we are also number one. It would seem to me if you wanted to have an effect on those statistics so badly then you would do something about those! However, that leads us back to the laziness issue doesn't it. I have heard it all, I can't afford it, I cannot get it because I have a pre-existing condition, then you know what, start your own health insurance company, start a co-op,apply for grants from the FED. or apply for state aide. There are many ways to get health insurance if you want it badly enough and also many ways to change the system if you wish to change it. However, mandating change on those who do not wish to change will leave you in a very bad situation.. One more thing to consider, you may now consider this my calling Barack Obama a liar, as on page 44 of the bill, indivuduals CAN I repeat CAN have their insurance taken away from them if the board does not think that they are conforming with the legislation. So much for if you like your insurance you can keep it, I will file that one with, unemployment won't rise above 8.5% with the passage of this bill we need right now.

Why go to page 44?

individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level.

house-summary-americas-affordable-health-choice-act-july-14-2009

Just compare the title to the truth in the statement above it.

 

[Navy1960]

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Com2
missioner determines that a QHBP offering entity
3 violates a requirement of this title, the Commis4
sioner may, in coordination with State insurance
5 regulators and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in
6 addition to any other remedies authorized by law,
7 for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).
8 (2) REMEDIES.—The remedies described in this
9 paragraph, with respect to a qualified health benefits
10 plan offered by a QHBP offering entity, are—
11 (A) civil money penalties of not more than
12 the amount that would be applicable under
13 similar circumstances for similar violations
14 under section 1857(g) of the Social Security
15 Act;
16 (B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to


Thats page 44 Gunny and what I was speaking of was the statement " If you like your insurance you can keep it" that is of course unless the comissioner doesn't seem to think it fits the Govt. standard and then they will suspend you.

 

[Gunny]

You guys can't handle the truth.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and have as good or better results.

They are smarter than we are.

That's why our businesses can't compete worldwide, because businesses overseas don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!

We can handle truth. You just can't handle life or you wouldn't be needing Big Brother to wipe your ass.